I never said there's anything wrong with making sex appeal the main point of a piece of art.

If it's Marvel and DC-style comic art, it's still meant to work in 3D. Everyone knows the proportions are different in superheroes: taller, elongated limbs, odd musculature. Everyone understands that, whether or not they like it or agree with it. Those things are matters of taste. Others are breaks in the world…

That's not what I said. If you're making abstract art then by all means fuck around, but if your character is meant to have a skeleton and it doesn't, you made a mistake. If your woman's spine is elongated and has knuckles because you're trying to create a means to point both breasts and both buttcheeks at my eyes,…

That's always the best thing, but even then it's better still if the artist understands the form under the skin and why it works that way (how the pectoral muscle affects the breast, how the nipple connects to tissues beneath, the mobility of the nipple, fat distribution, mapping connective tissue, etc).

Yeah, but funhouse mirrors aren't fun for very long. These people aren't trying to be the new Picasso, they're just making busted pictures.

It's a piece of art by the maker of the guide.

Oh, they do. Check out Escher Girls, Boobs Don't Work That Way, and other blogs where they collect these things. In a lot of commercial art, the breasts and arse cheeks are actually craning around the body to point at the viewer. The entire 3D structure of some art collapses completely because the artist put sexual…

The point?

Approved. See also: http://boobsdontworkthatway.tumblr.com/

Is it because only your subconscious mind saw the smiley-face screen on the left?

Not really seeing the Fuck here. However, I still remember the cover of a certain issue of TV Times when I was a kid. The art director who decided to use brush script for the cover celebrity's name did not forsee having to feature Clint Eastwood.

My point exactly.

That's what I meant, except instead of "anymore" I meant "under any circumstances".

Tried it, but not even comparing it to Family Guy makes it funny.

What about Charles Whitman, or the Beltway snipers? It might be rare now, but it does happen.

Yes I understand that. But it's guaranteeing hits, and allowing people to aim over long distance, and therefore would be a very tempting option for a mass shooter. Plus it makes it all sexy, Terminator-like and game-ish.

Yeah I didn't say it was anything fresh, just that this really must bring things to a head now. You've completely misunderstood what "snake oil" refers to, but you might want to examine "straw man" and "false equivalence" while you're looking that up.

[Haven't watched the whole 24 minutes yet, just the first couple of minutes]

I understand why people describe Uwe Boll as "the worst director of all time", but anyone who says that hasn't plumbed the depths that I have. There are even worse offenders. For example, anyone who loves a good bad movie needs to see "Student Confidential": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt009406… Uwe Boll will seem like…

Good point. Obviously you'd pick one thing to be its selling point in an advert, and connectivity wouldn't be it.